On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:36, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Well look into Bruno's theory if you want some possible
answers.
Answers are a dime a dozen, correct answers are not. And Bruno
doesn't even know what questions to ask, like, "what does the
pronoun "you" refer to, or what does "free will" even mean, or does
the word "God" mean anything other than a amorphous grey blob, or
does a chain of "why" questions ever come to an end?". Bruno hasn't
even thought it important to ask these questions much less find the
answers.
You are just lying, or have serious memory problem, as I did answer
the questions with all details.
At the same time you have confessed not reading the papers, so ...
You are just doing propaganda for your religious beliefs, it seems to
me. Or for your ego or something.
Bruno
> What you propose explains less and assumes more.
You assume:
Physical universe -> Turing Machines -> Conscious Minds +
Turing Machines that exist in math -> Unconscious zombies
Whereas, we might simply assume: Turing Machines -> Conscious
Minds
You conclude with "Conscious Minds" but I do NOT assume nor
do I need to conclude that a conscious mind or the physical universe
exist because I know both from direct experience.
>> this simulation is being done by your physical brain.
So physics is simulating mathematics and NOT mathematics
simulating physics.
> In this case, yes, a physical process is simulating the
properties of a (relatively) abstract mathematical object.
And that is the one and only type of mathematical
object there is any evidence for. Maybe other types exist, and
maybe Harry Potter does too but there is no evidence for either.
Well OK.... maybe I've overstated my case, the 2 slit
experiment is some evidence that many worlds exist, and if an
infinite number of them exist then Harry Potter might too
. But even many worlds can't help with conjuring non-
simulated mathematical objects into existence
> the other postulated universes of the string theory landscape
possess the same ontological properties as mathematical objects: we
can learn about them from this universe, but only via simulation. We
can't affect them, and they can't affect us,
If that were true and we can't effect them and they can't
affect us then it would not be science it would be philosophy or
even worse theology. But it isn't true. if strings exist (a big if)
then every time you move your finger you effect the strings in your
finger, and if the strings were different physics would be different
and if physics were different chemistry would be different and if
chemistry were different you would be different.
> Why not review the current evidence?
If I ever run across evidence that computations can be made
without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics I make a
solemn promise to review it.
>> Perhaps mathematics comes from a desire humans have to
develop a language that is especially good at describing the
workings of physics. It's true as you pointed out that a lot of
higher very abstract mathematics seems to have little or nothing to
do with physics, but like any language once it is developed
mathematics can be used to write fiction as well as nonfiction,
perhaps a lot of it is like a mathematical Harry Potter novel.
> What do you believe is real,
John Clark is one example.
> and why?
I think therefore I am. And when I think differently matter
changes and when matter changes I think differently.
> What do you believe is unreal,
Harry Potter. And ideas that nobody or nothing has ever thought
or ever will think, and patterns of behavior that matter will never
perform.
> and why?
Just a hunch.
> Occam's razor applies. If mathematical objects exist, then
the physical universes exists as a mathematical object. One must
explain what the additional assumption of a physical universe adds
or explains.
Occam's razor applies. If physical objects exist, then the
mathematical universes exists as a physical object. One must
explain what the additional assumption of a mathematical
universe adds or explains.
> It [physics] fails to answer, why if there is only one
or some physical universes that exist why those are exist while
other, perfectly valid (from a mathematical structure perspective)
do not exist.
If you think that mathematics is more fundamental than physics and
if you think other physical laws have a perfectly valid mathematical
structure then it is your responsibility and not mine to explain why
they do not exist! The obvious explanation is that having a
perfectly valid mathematical structure may be necessary for
existence but it is not sufficient because physics is more
fundamental than mathematics
> It answers why a universe having laws like ours has
It does no such thing.
> It also has issues with the mind-body problem,
The greatest mystery about the mind-body problem is figuring
out what you would consider an adequate explanation. If I said X
produced mind and X was mind you would protest and say that was just
a tautology, and if it was not mind you would say "but X is not
mind". I believe that mind-body problem fanboys forget that the
chain of "why" questions either terminates with a brute fact or goes
on forever. So after saying that consciousness is the way data feels
like when it is being processed (by matter) there may not be
anything more to be said.
> and fails to offer any answer for why the universe exists at
all.
I suggest you read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence
M. Krauss, it doesn't explain why there is something rather than
nothing but it does explain the enormous progress physics has made
in just the last 20 years or so in explaining why there is a lot
rather than very little. Pure mathematics has made zero progress on
this matter in the same time.
> what is primary? Why do our thoughts exist? Why do they
appear to correspond to a well-ordered structure? Where does
mathematical knowledge come from? This theory offers no explanation.
Do you really think Bruno has done any better at answering these
problems, or any problems?
> It [mathematics] answers the mind-body problem,
That is news to me! So then what is the answer?
> [mathematics] explains why we have QM-like laws
I can do the same thing. If mathematics is a language humans have
devised to explain how the physical world works then the
mathematical theory of quantum mechanics had to be the way it is
or it wouldn't correctly describe the way the physical world works.
And nobody would be crazy enough to come up with quantum mechanics
from pure mathematics, instead experimental observation of the
physical world determined what the mathematics in quantum theory
should be.
> and offers hope of deriving laws of physics from pure number
theory.
Hope is good, but as of September 13 2015 there is not even a hint
of such a thing.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
